Cycling UK Forum

I used the Holyhead - Dublin Irish Ferries last year. All fine, same experience as you, except that on arrival at Holyhead we were allowed on the foot passenger bus first, and the foot passengers joined the bus after us, mingling around us. Then out of politeness/practicality, we waited on the bus until all the foot passengers had got off.
I wonder if the difference between your experience and mine is dependent on which end of the ferry your bike is (at the first off or last off end of the car deck). I can't remember which end we were, though I have a hunch it was the first off end.

"If a design doesn’t ride properly no hands then it doesn’t ride properly at all.
People are prepared to accept poor handling of Brompton because there is no other bike which folds as small.
Other bikes with poor handling survive in the market place for reasons I can’t fathom."

Not sure I agree with this. I would have though riding no hands is also related to how much (or little) trail the bike has. Same again for steering flop
That said, some (if not all - all would undermine my point of course) bikes can ride no handed, here is a video some where of a riderless bike going some distance on its own down hill. I think this gets a mention in Bicycling Science.

Bromptons are twitchy as they have little trail, as a confident/able rider, on a Brompton riding 1 handed (eg while signalling) is a bit of a challenge.
Too much steering flop, and the moment the steering goes off centre, if wants to go even more of centre, not what you want riding no handed.
I write as someone who has had a few (not many) decent bikes over the years. I have never managed to ride no handed.
May be it is a confidence thing, I feel if I sit upright it may well ride no handed, but as I can't reach the bars from that position, I'm not willing the risk to try!

byshultz g.2. LT do a black spring version, rider weight 125 - 150 kg, or, slightly intreaguingly, "ca 125 - 150kg", see here: -
https://byschulz.com/product/g-2-lt-par ... t/?lang=en

All the brakes you list are geometrically similar, so on paper not that much performance difference between them.
Avoid the CT90/91's, they have the same plastic spring cover that broke on your last brakes, the strong Australian sun won't help either with the degrading plastic.

Other brakes you list I'd say all would be ok, but; -
1. If you buy a used set, if the pads are old, they might have gone hard/aged (= poor friction), so replace pads if any doubt.
2. Any cantilever brake set will be potentially useless if set up the wrong way, you need to get the cable(s)/arm and pad geometry correct. Various threads on this forum on that, or teenage school resolution of forces/moments should help you.
3. I never found the design of cantilever brake you list are as good as the earlier wide (triangular cut out) arm design - I am still using some of these from the 1980's. Shimano no longer make this design, but Tektro do (CR 520, CR 720). Some people claim poor due to being sloppy on the frame pivots, but the ones I used* for camping were fine (*No longer, I sold the bike for non brake reasons).
4. The Tektro Oryx design I have never found to be very good (no real bite compared to other cantilever brakes), despite plenty of opportunity to perfect them while at work. Other models I can set up with much better results.

My hunch would be that the drive side flange was made thicker to take the higher spoke stress on the drive side caused by the wheel dish.
(Or may be the non drive side is flange is thinner to match the lower non drive side spoke stress).

While a good way to minimise weight (if such things are important to you), it is annoying if the spokes on each side of the wheel use the same dimension spoke heads.

You should be able to copy and paste a link into your post. Plenty of others manage that all the time.
If you can't, make/model of said trousers would be helpful.

I happened to have 2 bikes in at work the other day, 3s toggle chain, 3s rotary
The rotary mechanism requires a lot more cable pull (movement) than the toggle chain, so they need different levers.

Details here: -
https://www.sturmey-archer.com/en/produ ... ail/rx-rd3

Click on the parts list and you will see various lever options/types,

"145mm rear triangles on tandems are the usual standard" is the current standard, but for many years it was 140mm.
To be sure, remove wheel and measure the internal width of the dropouts. The width is probably still the original width, for the dropout width to narrow vs the manufactured width would probabaly take a lot more than tigthening onto a 130mm hub.

Going slightly longer, Synergy tandem hubs are 145mm QR axles, 40 or 48 spokes: -
https://www.tandeming.co.uk/parts-acces ... -rear-hub/

Sealed cartridge bearings/chunky aluminuim axle (no threads) except for the reducing bits at the ends., so possibly scope for pearing down to 140mm with due mechanical diligence/home work done in advance. 10s cassette body (Shimano spline).
Aluminium frames are best not used sprung to the wrong width, (or cold set come to that).

They also list DT Swiss tandem hubs (but annoyingly 135mm or 145mm), I would not use these, the flanges look too close together for a strong wheel.
Also a Hope tandem hub, only in 145mm, and 32 or 36 hole.

I wouldn't heat the crank/bolt while the bolt is in place, the cranks can only expand laterally away from the bolt head onto the axle taper, and so will make the crank (and bolt) a tighter fit.

Using a (firmly mounted) vice is a good option, and you are lucky having 14mm hex headed bolts.

If you had 8mm allen socket bolts the vice might be less useful. I once had some stuck pedals (not mine, I suspect they had been fitted (6 months previous) with little or no grease), the pedals only had allen sockets, no 15mm spanner flats. The pedals would not budge, so I put an 8mm allen key in the vice, try as I might, the allen key was just too springy to get enough sudden torque or shock to loosen the pedal, and that was with mounting the allen key in the vice at the L bend with the short section sticking up. The cranks were Campag, I think carbon, so heating wasn't on the cards.

Re rim, probably the end of the maker's transfer?(!).

Adjusting cleat position could be an easy try, but altering foot position/angle might lead to joint/ligament issues due to your feet no longer being in the ideal position/angle etc for you (assuming they are in the ideal position currently!).
If you can simply slide the cleat sideways keeping the angle the same, that is definately worth a try.
Pedal extenders are an easy try, remove pedals, fit extenders, refit pedals (greasing all threads as you go of course). Extenders come in different lengths,
An example here ; - https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/pedals-clea ... -916-inch/
Googling "pedal extenders" comes up with lots of other choices.

Laws of unintended consequences. Moving the pedals out a bit seems quite inoquous. However, a friend had back ache. In the summer, no back ache. On switching to his winter commuting bike, the back ache returned within a few days. He measured the position on both bikes, they were set up the same (as in identical). The only difference he found was in the Q factor (how wide the pedals were set apart). The wider Q factor, no back ache, narrower Q factor, back ache. He fitted pedal extenders to the smaller Q factor winter bike, and the back ache went, not to return.

Re comment about rubbing the front gear mech. If your feet are moved further out, I'd have thought you are less likely to rub the front gear.
Changing cranks for a different length would make almost no difference, except to you. Some people are happy with different crank lengths on different bikes - a friend has 170/172.5/175mm cranks, and rides all 3 with out issue. I tried 175mm cranks (normally use 170mm) and couldn't get on with them, the sadde just felt too low (top dead centre being 1cm higher).
Changing cranks for ones with more off set (curved out) to widen the pedals is an expensive alternative to pedal extenders, but might be worth considering if pedal extenders are an extend too far.
Your pedals will be standard 9/16" British threads.

A friend now has the bike up on Ebay for me, if anyone is interested, item no 266821189995
The bike is in Oxford.
At some point there will be some new Capreo hubs and cassettes for sale as well.

Looking at your links to Velobase, different sized ball bearings 5/32" vs 3/16", and thus different numbers of balls, top and bottom.